A Look at Odo

[clearspira]

Because me loving a man or loving a woman is still me loving a human being. Odo is a puddle of goo, which as a poster above pointed out, is such a different lifeform to us that this is the equivalent of you finding a mold spore attractive. Do you find mold attractive?

And as for gender, Odo is an asexual puddle of goo. Gender does not apply to him because physical sex does not apply to him.

I don't, but bestiality is a thing, so some people might. I mean we're talking about fucking star trek here, humans fuck aliens all the damn time. This wouldn't even be the first time we've seen a relationship where the genitals are compatible. Why is this a big deal now? Why is "sentient pile of goo" and different than "green chick", "ridged forehead", "species only live 10 years so you're banging a 4 year old" or "species lives hundreds of years so you're banging a centenarian". If you're banging something that isn't human you're banging something that isn't human.

Humans are generally sexual beings, yet asexual people exist. Why are you having so much trouble with the idea when this is absolutely no different from a whole bunch of humans.

Like let's look at this, humans are a gendered species that reproduce sexually. Yet there are individuals among as that don't feel sexual attraction and don't identify as either gender. Odo's LGBT+. That's it. It's not hard.

My point though is that he SHOULD be asexual which is why Odo makes no sense. His natural body has no sex. He is neuter. A Ken doll. He has neither an innie nor an outie.

And humans "should" (quotes for a reason) be sexual. Yet plenty of people aren't.

There is a difference though between choosing to be a non-sexual member of a sexual species and not being biologically designed to have sex.

[TrueMetis]

Because me loving a man or loving a woman is still me loving a human being. Odo is a puddle of goo, which as a poster above pointed out, is such a different lifeform to us that this is the equivalent of you finding a mold spore attractive. Do you find mold attractive?

And as for gender, Odo is an asexual puddle of goo. Gender does not apply to him because physical sex does not apply to him.

I don't, but bestiality is a thing, so some people might. I mean we're talking about fucking star trek here, humans fuck aliens all the damn time. This wouldn't even be the first time we've seen a relationship where the genitals aren't compatible. Why is this a big deal now? Why is "sentient pile of goo" and different than "green chick", "ridged forehead", "species only live 10 years so you're banging a 4 year old" or "species lives hundreds of years so you're banging a centenarian". If you're banging something that isn't human you're banging something that isn't human.

Humans are generally sexual beings, yet asexual people exist. Why are you having so much trouble with the idea when this is absolutely no different from a whole bunch of humans.

Like let's look at this, humans are a gendered species that reproduce sexually. Yet there are individuals among as that don't feel sexual attraction and don't identify as either gender. Odo's LGBT+. That's it. It's not hard.

My point though is that he SHOULD be asexual which is why Odo makes no sense. His natural body has no sex. He is neuter. A Ken doll. He has neither an innie nor an outie.

And humans "should" (quotes for a reason) be sexual. Yet plenty of people aren't.

There is a difference though between choosing to be a non-sexual member of a sexual species and not being biologically designed to have sex.

(bolding mine)

Not a choice dude. Asexual people are not choosing to be so, anymore than gay people are choosing to find their sex more attractive, or trans people are choosing to identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth.

So no, not really different at all. It's just a sentient being having sexual preferences that are non-standard for their species. Happens all the time in humans.

[clearspira]

Because me loving a man or loving a woman is still me loving a human being. Odo is a puddle of goo, which as a poster above pointed out, is such a different lifeform to us that this is the equivalent of you finding a mold spore attractive. Do you find mold attractive?

And as for gender, Odo is an asexual puddle of goo. Gender does not apply to him because physical sex does not apply to him.

I don't, but bestiality is a thing, so some people might. I mean we're talking about fucking star trek here, humans fuck aliens all the damn time. This wouldn't even be the first time we've seen a relationship where the genitals aren't compatible. Why is this a big deal now? Why is "sentient pile of goo" and different than "green chick", "ridged forehead", "species only live 10 years so you're banging a 4 year old" or "species lives hundreds of years so you're banging a centenarian". If you're banging something that isn't human you're banging something that isn't human.

Humans are generally sexual beings, yet asexual people exist. Why are you having so much trouble with the idea when this is absolutely no different from a whole bunch of humans.

Like let's look at this, humans are a gendered species that reproduce sexually. Yet there are individuals among as that don't feel sexual attraction and don't identify as either gender. Odo's LGBT+. That's it. It's not hard.

My point though is that he SHOULD be asexual which is why Odo makes no sense. His natural body has no sex. He is neuter. A Ken doll. He has neither an innie nor an outie.

And humans "should" (quotes for a reason) be sexual. Yet plenty of people aren't.

There is a difference though between choosing to be a non-sexual member of a sexual species and not being biologically designed to have sex.

(bolding mine)

Not a choice dude. Asexual people are not choosing to be so, anymore than gay people are choosing to find their sex more attractive, or trans people are choosing to identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth.

So no, not really different at all. It's just a sentient being having sexual preferences that are non-standard for their species. Happens all the time in humans.

I do not believe true asexuals exist in any significant number, and for what's it worth, nor do many experts - please go and check the Wikipedia page on the subject. There is significant debate as to whether it is an actual orientation or just a disorder. It is also interesting to me that many in the LGBT community resent and have even fought against the inclusion of asexuality as an orientation.

I believe you can be celibate, I believe you can have an incredibly low sex drive, I believe that a traumatic event can put you off sex. But completely asexual? As in, no masturbation, no sexually induced erections, nothing? Very unlikely. Which is why that page on asexuality has so many dubious criteria listed such as ''asexuals who still masturbate to porn but don't have sex''. Uh, that's not asexuality, that's a personality trait that you've put a label too. You are not asexual if you can still look at a pair of boobs and get a hard on regardless of whether you express that emotion with your hand, penetration or nothing at all.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I do not believe true asexuals exist in any significant number, and for what's it worth, nor do many experts - please go and check the Wikipedia page on the subject. There is significant debate as to whether it is an actual orientation or just a disorder. It is also interesting to me that many in the LGBT community resent and have even fought against the inclusion of asexuality as an orientation.

I believe you can be celibate, I believe you can have an incredibly low sex drive, I believe that a traumatic event can put you off sex. But completely asexual? As in, no masturbation, no sexually induced erections, nothing? Very unlikely. Which is why that page on asexuality has so many dubious criteria listed such as ''asexuals who still masturbate to porn but don't have sex''. Uh, that's not asexuality, that's a personality trait that you've put a label too. You are not asexual if you can still look at a pair of boobs and get a hard on regardless of whether you express that emotion with your hand, penetration or nothing at all.

Alright, fair enough, but now we're delving into put a light on the framework of spectrum, which accounts for those dubious rather sexualized people you're talking of. If you're content on the idea that a physically/chemically absent sex drive is an inappropriate distinction for what we will assume as a population sample of relevant subjects, then I can understand that the classification might be over classifying in social terms that seem rather generic to satisfy a distinct demographic to some degree, whether physical, social, etc..

As far as the science, for it's not really that far fetched to consider that from the cognitive base of the brain to the genitals that there might exist a disposition where an otherwise functional person doesn't get emotional reactions to physical stimuli, be it touch or light through associated images. I'm speaking pretty broadly here, so I'm not trying to posit anything as much as question the assertive idea that such a person doesn't exist and even that such circumstance creates a common social condition. Really though I think the formal generation of aesexuality that we're for the most part discussing is structured through social recognition of people personally estranged from what I'd call sexualized culture, which pertains to the general culture of people that have embraced sexuality more or less overtly as a normal condition of society, particularly people that readily embrace their sexual impulses as they grow up.

[clearspira]

I do not believe true asexuals exist in any significant number, and for what's it worth, nor do many experts - please go and check the Wikipedia page on the subject. There is significant debate as to whether it is an actual orientation or just a disorder. It is also interesting to me that many in the LGBT community resent and have even fought against the inclusion of asexuality as an orientation.

I believe you can be celibate, I believe you can have an incredibly low sex drive, I believe that a traumatic event can put you off sex. But completely asexual? As in, no masturbation, no sexually induced erections, nothing? Very unlikely. Which is why that page on asexuality has so many dubious criteria listed such as ''asexuals who still masturbate to porn but don't have sex''. Uh, that's not asexuality, that's a personality trait that you've put a label too. You are not asexual if you can still look at a pair of boobs and get a hard on regardless of whether you express that emotion with your hand, penetration or nothing at all.

Alright, fair enough, but now we're delving into put a light on the framework of spectrum, which accounts for those dubious rather sexualized people you're talking of. If you're content on the idea that a physically/chemically absent sex drive is an inappropriate distinction for what we will assume as a population sample of relevant subjects, then I can understand that the classification might be over classifying in social terms that seem rather generic to satisfy a distinct demographic to some degree, whether physical, social, etc..

As far as the science, for it's not really that far fetched to consider that from the cognitive base of the brain to the genitals that there might exist a disposition where an otherwise functional person doesn't get emotional reactions to physical stimuli, be it touch or light through associated images. I'm speaking pretty broadly here, so I'm not trying to posit anything as much as question the assertive idea that such a person doesn't exist and even that such circumstance creates a common social condition. Really though I think the formal generation of aesexuality that we're for the most part discussing is structured through social recognition of people personally estranged from what I'd call sexualized culture, which pertains to the general culture of people that have embraced sexuality more or less overtly as a normal condition of society, particularly people that readily embrace their sexual impulses as they grow up.

My take away from this is that we need a new word. Coming along and repurposing a word that already exists and already has a clear meaning just does not work and leads to needless confusion. See also: ''they'' as a pronoun.

[Riedquat]

Because me loving a man or loving a woman is still me loving a human being. Odo is a puddle of goo, which as a poster above pointed out, is such a different lifeform to us that this is the equivalent of you finding a mold spore attractive. Do you find mold attractive?

And as for gender, Odo is an asexual puddle of goo. Gender does not apply to him because physical sex does not apply to him.

I don't, but bestiality is a thing, so some people might. I mean we're talking about fucking star trek here, humans fuck aliens all the damn time. This wouldn't even be the first time we've seen a relationship where the genitals aren't compatible. Why is this a big deal now? Why is "sentient pile of goo" and different than "green chick", "ridged forehead", "species only live 10 years so you're banging a 4 year old" or "species lives hundreds of years so you're banging a centenarian". If you're banging something that isn't human you're banging something that isn't human.

The aliens we see in Star Trek are almost all humans with bits stuck on (not too many genuine alien actors available), easily similar enough for sexual attraction to be unsurprising.

It's also possible to be very close to someone without any sexual attraction involved.

Do we know that gender doesn't apply to Odo? I don't recall much information at all about the biology of the Changelings, whether they have different sexes or not. There's the female changeling of course but I don't think there's anything to say whether she takes a female form because she is or whether she just picks the same shape every time for the sake of being recognised and it just happens to be a female one.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

My take away from this is that we need a new word. Coming along and repurposing a word that already exists and already has a clear meaning just does not work and leads to needless confusion. See also: ''they'' as a pronoun.

While this doesn't indicate reciprocity to what I was saying necessarily lol I guess you can say that a more practical term be chosen. I've never really been that struck down by terms in this manner. I can understand the misdirection, and I guess there are observable cases where people argue in a breakdown of communication because of this.

Overall I'm fine when systems of knowledge use vague descriptors for coinage as they usually have a reason for the skewed nomenclature for precise disfunction, and also what's really more important is the substance behind the term. Mainly those that have empirical basis in logic and application, but I suppose the social systems can be accounted for as well.